Sudan has accused the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of being the “driving force” behind what it terms genocide in Darfur, alleging that the UAE has supported rebels fighting the Sudanese army.
The case, presented at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday, claims that the UAE is complicit in the genocide against Sudan’s Masalit community, providing backing to the paramilitary group Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has been engaged in a brutal conflict with the Sudanese army since 2023.
Khartoum insists that without the UAE’s involvement, the ongoing violence in Darfur — which includes killings, rapes, forced displacements, and looting — would not have been possible. The Sudanese government has sought to hold the UAE accountable, requesting that the ICJ force the country to cease its alleged support for the RSF and provide reparations, including compensation for victims of the war.
Muawia Osman, Sudan’s acting justice minister, told the court that the UAE’s logistical and military assistance to the RSF had been crucial in enabling the atrocities. “The direct support the UAE has provided and continues to provide to the RSF is the primary driving force behind the genocide now taking place,” he said.
However, UAE officials have vehemently denied the accusations. Reem Ketait, a senior UAE representative, dismissed the case as a “blatant misuse” of the ICJ, labelling it “entirely without legal or factual merit”. Ketait further emphasised that what Sudan needs now is not “political theatre” but an immediate ceasefire and a serious commitment to peace talks, a sentiment echoed by the United States and Saudi Arabia, who recently urged the Sudanese army and the RSF to resume negotiations.
Legal experts have raised concerns about the potential hurdles Sudan’s case may face, particularly regarding jurisdiction. The UAE entered a “reservation” when it signed the Genocide Convention, which limits the ICJ’s ability to hear disputes between signatory countries. This reservation is a key issue in the case.
Michael Becker, an international law expert from Trinity College Dublin, argued that the ICJ is likely to determine that it lacks jurisdiction due to this reservation. “The UAE’s reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention means that the ICJ may not be able to hear the case,” Becker wrote on the Opinio Juris website.
Sudan, however, maintains that the UAE’s reservation contradicts the core purpose of the Genocide Convention, which aims to foster global responsibility in preventing the world’s most egregious crimes.
The ICJ’s rulings are final and binding, but the court has no mechanism to enforce compliance, as seen in previous cases, such as Russia’s failure to adhere to a 2022 ruling ordering it to cease its invasion of Ukraine.
